Hilarious TV Commercial

> Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving:
> The KTLA Morning Show (notice it's no longer the Morning NEWS - I
> guess they finally decided to get honest with us) has been running a
> commercial for the Hummer H3 this week. It shows a guy buying Tofu at
> the grocery store; he glances over at the neighboring checkout line,
> where another man is buying a huge quantity of red meat. Walter Mitty
> then spots a Hummer brochure sitting in a magazine rack (oh, yeah - I
> see those in grocery stores all the time!) and he gets a flash of
> inspiration. He hurries over to his Hummer dealer and buys an H3. As
> he's driving off the dealer's lot, the words "Restore your manhood"
> appear on the screen.

That ad just ran a momant ago. The only thing lamer than the ad is the
H3 - or what ever the hell it was - iteslf.

Stupid Question, but how in the hell do you "restore your manhood," by
driving an abomination of a vehicle that is reall nothing more than an
overblown "butch," soccermom-mobile? Maybe by envisioning how bad he is
raping the world that the rest of us have to live in?

"necromancer" > wrote in message
th.net...

> > That ad just ran a momant ago. The only thing lamer than the ad
> > is the H3 - or what ever the hell it was - iteslf.

> > Stupid Question, but how in the hell do you "restore your
> > manhood," by driving an abomination of a vehicle that is really
> > nothing more than an overblown "butch," soccermom-mobile?
> > Maybe by envisioning how bad he is raping the world that
> > the rest of us have to live in?

First of all - I think the H2/H3/HTs/H** are silly vehicles. But...why all
the hate? In terms of damage to the enviroment per person mile, they are not
even close to the same league as a Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago - 9 mpg
city / 14 mpg highway with room for two small people and almost no luggage.
The H3 is rated 15 mpg city, 20 mpg highway with room for 5 "real" people
and significant luggage. You could argue that both vehicles are "manhood"
image enhancers. I see lots of people saying bad things about all SUVs (even
small ones that get relatively good gas mileage), but very few people
attacking high powered sports cars that have no "functional" reason to
exist. At least you can argue that an SUV that can hold 5 or 7 or 8 or 9
people and tow a significant load have reasonable functional uses. Is a
Soccer Mom driving a H3 to the grocery store any worse than a "cool dude"
driving his Lamborghini to the "club"? At least the H3 has room for the
groceries.

Ed

In article <44bf802b$1@kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:

> First of all - I think the H2/H3/HTs/H** are silly vehicles. But...why all
> the hate?

Ever see how many people drive them?

> In terms of damage to the enviroment per person mile, they are not
> even close to the same league as a Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago - 9 mpg
> city / 14 mpg highway with room for two small people and almost no luggage.

I have seen one, maybe two Lamborghini's of all kinds on the road in my
life. I see a Hummer just about every time I use a road. Others may have
similiar experiences, thusly they feel bang-for-the-buck on going after
the hummers.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article <44bf802b$1@kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > First of all - I think the H2/H3/HTs/H** are silly vehicles. But...why
all
> > the hate?
>
> Ever see how many people drive them?
>
> > In terms of damage to the enviroment per person mile, they are not
> > even close to the same league as a Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago - 9
mpg
> > city / 14 mpg highway with room for two small people and almost no
luggage.
>
> I have seen one, maybe two Lamborghini's of all kinds on the road in my
> life. I see a Hummer just about every time I use a road. Others may have
> similiar experiences, thusly they feel bang-for-the-buck on going after
> the hummers.

So it is OK for environmentally obnoxious vehicles to be marketed so long as
they are so expensive that only a few very rich, very elite people can own
them? Have I got that right? Anything that the "little people" can actually
afford must be acceptable to any two bit environmentalist having a bad hair
day? It is OK to slam a vehicle as being a Viagra substitute because it is
cheap, but you shouldn't slam one that only the super rich can afford?
Hypocrisy rules!

Ed

In article <44bf8dc3$1@kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <44bf802b$1@kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> > First of all - I think the H2/H3/HTs/H** are silly vehicles. But...why all
>> > the hate?
>>
>> Ever see how many people drive them?
>>
>> > In terms of damage to the enviroment per person mile, they are not
>> > even close to the same league as a Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago - 9 mpg
>> > city / 14 mpg highway with room for two small people and almost no luggage.
>>
>> I have seen one, maybe two Lamborghini's of all kinds on the road in my
>> life. I see a Hummer just about every time I use a road. Others may have
>> similiar experiences, thusly they feel bang-for-the-buck on going after
>> the hummers.
>
> So it is OK for environmentally obnoxious vehicles to be marketed so long as
> they are so expensive that only a few very rich, very elite people can own
> them? Have I got that right?

I stated nothing of the kind. Read it again.
If one's motive is the environment, then 2000 of X is more worthwild
than one of Y. That's just a guess at political motivations, not my view
on the world.

> Anything that the "little people" can actually
> afford must be acceptable to any two bit environmentalist having a bad hair
> day? It is OK to slam a vehicle as being a Viagra substitute because it is
> cheap, but you shouldn't slam one that only the super rich can afford?
> Hypocrisy rules!

You've gone off the deep end.

Personally, I rate vehicles by relative annoyance factor on the road, not
their mpg.

> C. E. White said in rec.autos.driving:
> First of all - I think the H2/H3/HTs/H** are silly vehicles. But...why all
> the hate? In terms of damage to the enviroment per person mile, they are not
> even close to the same league as a Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago - 9 mpg
> city / 14 mpg highway with room for two small people and almost no luggage.
> The H3 is rated 15 mpg city, 20 mpg highway with room for 5 "real" people
> and significant luggage.

Why the hate? For one thing, I see about as many Lamborghinis around
here as I see Polar Bears (IOW: none). Hummers (and the pricks who drive
them) are as common as mosquitoes (and just as annoying).

--
"How about this one: 'My child's self esteem is adequate
enough that we don't need to advertise his minor
schoolastic achievements on the back of our car.'"

--George Carlin

In article et>,

> Why the hate? For one thing, I see about as many Lamborghinis around
> here as I see Polar Bears (IOW: none). Hummers (and the pricks who
> drive them) are as common as mosquitoes (and just as annoying).


Do you hate pickup trucks? Because that's what Hummers a Chevy
pickups with boxy bodies on them. (Not the HUMMWV-based H-1, ob-
viously, but the H-2 and H-3.)

I bet pickups are beneath your "outrage radar." At least Hummers
are capable of carrying four or five adults, which I'd think would
make them more socially responsible than pickups in the eyes of
people such as yourself. But oddly enough, pickups don't attract
anywhere near the hostility that SUVs in general and Hummers in
particular do -- even though many, if not most, of them are used
as personal transportation rather than as work trucks or occasional-
use utility vehicles.

I don't own a Hummer or any other SUV, and I don't anticipate having
any particular desire for one. But like the previous poster, I don't
get the hostility that's directed at Hummers and their owners. Or to
put it another way, I understand the reason for it, but I think that
reason is silly and rather childish.

And that reason is this: the sort of people who hate Hummers tend to
be politically left of center, and for whatever reason, a visceral,
more-powerful-than-normal response to symbols seems to correlate with
leftist politics. (That's why, for example, liberals are so fond of
bumper stickers.)

Anyway, that's what causes liberals to lose sight of the fact that
while Hummers may be an affront to their sensibilities, there simply
aren't enough of the things extant to make a measurable difference
in aggregate gasoline consumption, or to present a significant
public menace as far as collision safety is concerned. It's what
the things *stand for* that bugs them, far more than any practical
aspect of their popularity does.

Speaking of symbols, a few years back a guy named Keith Bradsher
wrote an anti-SUV polemic called _High And Mighty: SUVs--The World's
Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way_. I've always
thought the title offered a certain insight into what _really_ bugs
liberals about SUVs, particularly the biggest ones: that their being
such an in-your-face example of conspicuous consumption, and especially
their high stance, triggers an atavistic form of class resentment in
these oh-so-class-sensitive people. All the rest -- the environmental
posturing, the insistence that they're dangerous to smaller vehicles
in the event of a collision -- is nothing but sanctimonious window
dressing.




Geoff

--
"Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate,
which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough.
I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still
standing." -- Ann Coulter

> Geoff Miller said in rec.autos.driving:
> Do you hate pickup trucks? Because that's what Hummers a Chevy
> pickups with boxy bodies on them. (Not the HUMMWV-based H-1, ob-
> viously, but the H-2 and H-3.)

Pickups serve a useful purpose. Hummers are nothing more than poseur
soccer mom mobiles that serve no useful purpose what-so-ever as they are
currently used.

Geoff Miller wrote:

<snip>

>
> Anyway, that's what causes liberals to lose sight of the fact that
> while Hummers may be an affront to their sensibilities, there simply
> aren't enough of the things extant to make a measurable difference
> in aggregate gasoline consumption,

You're kidding, right? I see one almost every time I drive somewhere
(usually a H2, which is even more annoying, because it's just a Yukon
made even bigger, slower, and harder to see/get around)

> or to present a significant
> public menace as far as collision safety is concerned. It's what
> the things *stand for* that bugs them, far more than any practical
> aspect of their popularity does.

But of course.

>
> Speaking of symbols, a few years back a guy named Keith Bradsher
> wrote an anti-SUV polemic called _High And Mighty: SUVs--The World's
> Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way_. I've always
> thought the title offered a certain insight into what _really_ bugs
> liberals about SUVs, particularly the biggest ones: that their being
> such an in-your-face example of conspicuous consumption, and especially
> their high stance, triggers an atavistic form of class resentment in
> these oh-so-class-sensitive people. All the rest -- the environmental
> posturing, the insistence that they're dangerous to smaller vehicles
> in the event of a collision -- is nothing but sanctimonious window
> dressing.

It's not so much class sensitivity as it is amazement that the drivers
of such vehicles have such a pronounced *lack* of class that they think
that their POS vehicle is actually cool or desirable in some way. Any
schmo with a job and the ability to sign a few pieces of paperwork can
get one, it takes someone with a really warped sense of taste and
complete lack of social responsibility to actually go through with it,
though.

nate

In article >, Geoff Miller wrote in response to
someone else:

> Do you hate pickup trucks? Because that's what Hummers a Chevy
> pickups with boxy bodies on them. (Not the HUMMWV-based H-1, ob-
> viously, but the H-2 and H-3.)

I don't hate pickups,hummers, or suvs. I dislike the legislation which
caused people to use them as passenger vehicles. I dislike the fact that
the vast majority of people driving them have no clue how and end up
screwing up the flow because of it and then the vehicle type's limited
abilities when present in great number also cause traffic issues.

> And that reason is this: the sort of people who hate Hummers tend to
> be politically left of center, and for whatever reason, a visceral,
> more-powerful-than-normal response to symbols seems to correlate with
> leftist politics. (That's why, for example, liberals are so fond of
> bumper stickers.)

Everything has to be drawn into the bogus left-right thing. It's getting
really silly now. Although, I am certain that if I got to know most
hummer drivers I wouldn't like them given how they drive. Especially the
ones who use their vehicle to threaten and attempt to intimiate other
road users with them.

> Anyway, that's what causes liberals to lose sight of the fact that
> while Hummers may be an affront to their sensibilities,

The affront to my sensibilities is a bunch of control freak ass-clowns
fighting over who will control everybody else. Maybe you (democrats and
republicans) ought to learn how to live and let live and vote all the
corrupt *******s out of office.

> there simply
> aren't enough of the things extant to make a measurable difference
> in aggregate gasoline consumption, or to present a significant
> public menace as far as collision safety is concerned.

Then there aren't enough ford mustangs either.

> Speaking of symbols, a few years back a guy named Keith Bradsher
> wrote an anti-SUV polemic called _High And Mighty: SUVs--The World's
> Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way_. I've always
> thought the title offered a certain insight into what _really_ bugs
> liberals about SUVs, particularly the biggest ones: that their being
> such an in-your-face example of conspicuous consumption, and especially
> their high stance, triggers an atavistic form of class resentment in
> these oh-so-class-sensitive people.

Laughable. Look at your top 'liberals'. All about conspicuous consumption
and being better than everyone else. Of course they use 'class warfare'
to get people to follow them... not to mention the 'right' has their own
bogus tactics too.

The fools are the ones buying into the left-right scheme.